What do you do when you can put a face on The Powers That Be which affected the way your grew up? Little did I know that this sassy woman, Mena Trott, had a lot to do with my formative years. You know, the ones I spent blogging away my teenage angst on a not so little SixApart server called LiveJournal. Trott and her husband Ben just happened to found SixApart, so upon finding out this fact, I was drawn to learn more about what she had to say. After watching this video? Frankly, Mena is not only the enabler of my creative writing addiction, but she's also someone I'd like to meet personally to talk shop.
In her TEDTalk, Mena talks about the relevance of blogs in today's world.
Seeing as I'm winding down with these blog entries, I found it fitting for me to do a blog entry.. About blogging. My experience here has been primarily academic, but I have a personal blog. I microblog on Twitter. I am a proud citizen of the online world, and am exposed to everything it brings, whether it's advertising or news or recreation. I would not be where I am today without people like Mena Trott. The world would not be where it is today without people like Mena Trott.
To keep this relevant and less nostalgic, blogs have had a HUGE impact on advertising and marketing. They're direct channels to consumers, to companies and other online bodies willing to search them out. Mena makes a point of talking about how blogs connect people, how they "flatten the world" and put everybody equidistant from one another. This is true in the business environment as well. Online, anybody can post a comment or click a rating. Anybody can view a commercial, whether it's once or seventy-five times.
Blogging has put our brains on the front lines of the Internet, our experiences and feelings along with it. I don't think that blogging can hinder advertising at all, because it creates that sense of community and a safe space for people to talk candidly about their experiences, good or bad with a given product or service.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
+ 014 - 05.11.2010 - ACADEMIC
+ 013 -05.11.2010 - NEWS
YouTube is something near and dear to my heart. My senior thesis was written using YouTube as a means to view historical political advertisements, and I feel like I know a lot of the ins and outs of such a website. David Carr tells the New York Times about how the Reuters' Insider is using the YouTube effect for traders.
Thomson Reuters is trying to change television. Its new product, Reuters Insider, is a Web-based video service that captures myriad streams of information produced by the company’s reporters and 150 partners. The service, which will begin Tuesday, is something like a You Tube for the financially interested, albeit one that is available only to Reuters subscribers, who pay as much as $2,000 a month.
Two THOUSAND dollars? YouTube is free! I think if Reuters' wants to make the most of this opportunity, they'd offer it generally. This service, however, reminds me of an aggregator or an RSS feed. It pulls all the relevant information you need and puts it in one, easy-to-access place. I think creating such a thing will bring good things for the financial professions, advertising and marketing already use YouTube- ubiquitously, and I think that Reuters' is making a STEP in the right direction.
+ 012 - 05.11.2010 - NEWS
Stuart Elliott, you never let me down. Here, the marketing tactic that JetBlue is using, experiential marketing, is highlighted. This is something that I find fascinating because I haven't seen it employed much in the industry thus far. Maybe I'm just missing it because it hasn't been done successfully. In terms of an airline, this marketing tactic may be effective.
“Customers who fly JetBlue appreciate it,” said Michael Stromer, director for e-commerce and interactive marketing at JetBlue Airways in Forest Hills, Queens, which makes it “so important to generate trial with potential customers.”
At the same time, “we’re in a world where people do not trust what companies have to say about themselves,” he added, “but they trust what other people tell them.”
Okay. So what's going on here, Elliott details, is that the marketers essentially want the consumers to do their marketing for them.
For instance, Arianne Cohen, the author of “The Tall Book: A Celebration of Life From on High,” praises the legroom on JetBlue aircraft, which offer several more inches than most domestic airlines’ coach cabins. The author is 6 feet 3 inches.
“She’s a perfect example” of what JetBlue is trying to accomplish, said Fiona Morrisson, director for brand and advertising at JetBlue. “Until someone tells you what three extra inches of legroom is, it’s hard to know what it means to you.”
“We were built on word of mouth,” Ms. Morrisson said of JetBlue, which this year celebrates its 10th anniversary. “We want to get customers to use their positive word of mouth to get our story out,” she added, and Ms. Cohen is “tall, she talks about JetBlue in her book and she’s a big fan.”
This marketing tactic can either be very successful, or can prove to be a huge bust. The representation of JetBlue is placed directly into the hands of their customers and it's admittedly a risky move. If I worked for JetBlue, I know that I'd be hesitant about taking such an approach, but the executives seem to be passionate and assured.
Taking a step back from the marketing perspective, I feel like this technique of advertising could work well for hospitality industries. Well, for the consumers of things in the hospitality industry. Certain establishments may take a hit or two, but that's the business. Using this technique brings a bit more honesty to it.
+ 011 - 05.11.2010 - ACADEMIC
Social networking. I feel like I start off every blog talking about them. In keeping with tradition, for this blog post, I actually decided to talk about social networks- or talk about what Nicholas Christakis has to say about them. He talks about 'induction' (if I do this, you do this,) 'homophily' (the 'birds of a feather' idea) and 'confounding' (finding a common ground) in terms of connection, but most importantly, he talks about the connections themselves that people make with each other.
I do want to say, first off, that his study had to do with obesity and weight gain- but the connections between people hold true in many different ways.
Christakis talks about seeing social networks as a living thing. They are born, they live and they die. He also talks about the spread of emotions across a network, for example, like anger or fear in a riot situation. This ripple effect is something that I find valid and interesting.
Mr. Christakis and his colleagues have come up with several different maps and images to help us understand the connections between people. He questions why our networks aren't formed particularly in a conventional, lattice shape, and explains that it isn't the way networks work. He then goes on to talk about the network as a super organism which has the potential to explain crime, politics and other relevant topics.
Christakis delivers the talk dynamically, and when it comes to advertising, it's clear that TRENDING can easily be slipped into the fray of things that can be predicted and explained through the super organism of a social network.
+ 010 - 05.11.2010 - INDUSTRY
I said in my previous post that I enjoy reading blogs, and I do. I have a few linked in my sidebar (Heather B. Armstrong is a fave of mine,) but Seth Godin is also one of my go-to resources. Seth is someone that I've learned a lot from in my academic career, whether it's about 'remarkable marketing' in his book, The Purple Cow, or whether it's a gem of a blog entry like this one.
In this blog entry, he talks about what makes an idea viral.
Now, viral can be defined in many different ways. There are campaigns, like those seen for films like The Dark Knight and most recently, Inception- or there are those for music. One musical viral campaign that I am particularly enraptured with lately is that of iamamiwhoami [WARNING: NOT A WORKSAFE LINK,] the anonymous, explicit artist (believed to be folk singer Jonna Lee,) posting coded videos on an anonymous YouTube account. Seth Godin talks about why these particular ideas and campaigns are so successful.
If it's easy to swallow, tempting and complete, it's a lot more likely to get a good start.
This statement defines Godin's post. It also defines many of the previously listed viral campaigns in some way. Of course, there's the mystery element, but the campaigns themselves are 'encapsulated' in a certain way and are easily defined. The why so serious? campaign for The Dark Knight was largely successful because people knew what it was about and wanted to know more. The iamamiwhoami campaign was simple: anonymity. It was an easy to digest idea; a blonde, disguised girl in the midst of a bunch of explicit, coded images. There was a puzzle to figure out, and it's still in progress. (I might know who the performer is, but that doesn't mean I have figured out her message just yet!)
Godin talks about making ideas appealing and simple. If an idea is highly visual and memorable, he says, it's easier to remember and identify. If it doesn't require much effort to remember, the effort for it to be talked about will be made, and it's only been proven true with recent viral campaigns in the industry.
.. Now, if anyone could tell me what exactly all the coding in the iamamiwhoami videos means, I would be eternally grateful!
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
+ 009 - 05.04.2010 - INDUSTRY
I read a lot of blogs online, that's no secret. I have a little trouble keeping up with my own, also not much of a secret, but I'm back, am catching up and am here to talk about.. a blog. This blog, however, assists with creativity and content. With articles like '8 habits of highly effective bloggers,' 'How to increase your blog subscription rate by 254%' and 'Five grammatical errors that make you look dumb,' Copyblogger.com is a great resource for anyone aiming to market themselves online. Copyblogger.com is a great resource for anyone looking to improve their copy writing skills, looking to learn how to keep a successful blog or just looking for an interesting read. Note the key word of 'looking' in the previous sentence. You have to look and search on this website to find anything. Once you do, the advice they give you is worth the search-and-rescue mission.
It provides an easy, honest, conversational way to launch your blog into the digital ranks.
While we all hope what we have to say is more important than some silly grammatical error, the truth is some people will not subscribe or link to your blog if you make dumb mistakes when you write, and buying from you will be out of the question.
With frank advice like that, it's hard to deny that this resource not only will help copy writers develop their craft, but will help to give solid content to the many blogs on the web.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
+ 009 - 04.13.2010 - INDUSTRY
This article interested me for a few reasons. One, because we had talked about humor in one of our classes, and how effective humorous advertising doesn't have a particular life cycle, and two, because I wasn't conscious of how ubiquitous this sort of thing is. I'm talking about advertising longevity. Stuart Elliott, a journalist whose work I have talked about before, talks about particular campaigns that have stood the test of time, even after the advertisements have gone off the air.
Of course, with tools like YouTube and Facebook, Elliott points out, viewing campaigns past is totally possible, but we're talking about network television. When these ads are cast off into the greener pastures of campaign retirement, their legacies live on. Too epic? Maybe, but we all remember Fred Flintstone's Winston endorsement. We all remember the "Yo Quiero Taco Bell" chihuahua. The advertisements may be long gone, but there are certain things we can recall to a T.
If marketers are striving to “build and foster a community of advocates,” Mr. LeBrun said, they ought not be like “politicians who go online around election time and then disappear after the election.”
This goes back to the life cycle discussion. Advertising can't be looked at as having a birth, life and death. It needs to be examined as something circular and fluid that will always have relevance or appeal. Advertising shouldn't even have the possibility to get stale.
This possibility is taken away, the article later explains, when objectives are in line.
To keep ads from a former campaign alive, “the messaging has to be consistent with your overall brand identity,” Mr. Castellini said, and Monk-e-mail fits that bill because it suggests to people with each e-mail message they send that “CareerBuilder is the destination to find your next best opportunity.”
If your priorities are straight when you advertise, if your creative thinking caps are on and you have a direct objective, you're more likely to be successful in your campaign.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
+ 008 - 04.06.10 - NEWS
Product placement is something that I've come to accept and almost tune out when it comes to films because it's become so commonplace; a Coke can in a characters hand, Nissan sponsoring a television series, it's all something that audiences have begun to acknowledge and see as normal. I think what audiences are also becoming aware of is the fact that such a thing is mandatory to make a film these days. Stephanie Clifford, author of the article writes that "... having Campbell’s Soup or Chrysler associated with your project can be nearly as important to your pitch as signing Tom Cruise."
Clifford is correct. Celebrities and product placement both bring in much-needed funding to an industry that is not ultimately affordable in terms of professional production. An example of this can be found in 2009's Up in the Air.
In the 2009 film “Up in the Air,” Jason Reitman, the writer and director, wanted a real hotel brand for his frequent-flying character.
As a Hilton HHonors Diamond V.I.P. member himself, Mr. Reitman urged the studio to make a deal with Hilton, which offered free lodging for the crew, sets and promotions of the film on everything from key cards to in-room televisions to toll-free hold messages. Hilton worked with the production company to make sure everything from staff uniforms to hotel shuttles was portrayed correctly.
Deals like that mean lower-budget movies like “Up in the Air” can be made. They also mean movie viewers are increasingly paying to see more elaborately constructed advertising.
The article goes on to talk about debates about infringing on creativity. Product placement limits direction, for example, a deal with Dodge may result in only Dodge RAM trucks being used in a film. But what if the character isn't a 'Dodge RAM' type of person? Does that take away from the creative cinematic experience?
I say yes.
I think in some respects, entire product sponsorship of a film project limits what the writers and designers are capable of. To be able to make the film, however, may come with creative compromise. A writer/director/producer/designer shouldn't have to compromise their artistic vision because of a sponsorship, but in this economy, the most efficient thing to do would be to make the economic choice and deal with the sacrifices later.
It's an unfortunate truth, but it's something that Clifford has hit right on the head.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
+ 007 - 03.14.10 - INDUSTRY
There are a few things that I'm susceptible to. Getting some sort of achievement is one of them. Whether it's a diploma or other kind of physical certificate, a ribbon in Farmville, or just a gold star, I'm into it. If it involves large coffeehouse chains where I go to get my obscenely large teas in the late afternoon and the social media application that I'm currently obsessing over on my Blackberry? I'm totally willing to admit I'm game.
Back on topic. Starbucks and Foursquare. Jennifer van Grove from Mashable reports that Starbucks, (not so stealthily) in light of their public butt-whooping by McCafe, that they'll be teaming up with the innovative, mobile, social media client.
For those of you that don't know, this is foursquare. Foursquare is a GPS-based system that uses your phone to gauge your current location- publishing it to the Internet along with different messages or 'shouts' that you can add to your message. This alert can be published to your Facebook or Twitter, where you can tell your friends to come meet up with you or to try the new Dark Cherry Mocha. (I haven't tried it yet, but it's just an example.) For every check-in you have, you earn points on Foursquare. Starbucks is getting in on the check-in craze.
Starbucks visitors who check in at retail locations using Foursquare will earn customer rewards. Although there’s no financial incentive or free coffee to begin with, customers can unlock the “Barista badge” after five checkins.
Of course that’s just the beginning; the coffee behemoth plans to use Foursquare as a testing ground for alternative reward strategies and to unlock “the pulse of the experience” for each store.
If you think this is a straight-up play to offer location-based mobile coupons, think again. The New York Times Bits Blog writes that the company is “hoping to use Foursquare to provide even more meaningful prizes, like invitations to special events, photo-sharing or online reputation scores.
Starbucks is one of Foursquare's most popular check-in locations, so to take advantage of social media for advertising is smart at this point- not necessarily new, because Tasti-D-Lite has already gotten in on the trend, but definitely smart. McCafe, monetarily, has been overtaking Starbucks by a mile. Starbucks is using social media to try and make up that gap and according to sources, it may work. It has changed the question from "Are we willing to pay 3 dollars for coffee?" to "Is it really worth the three dollars?" and that alone is huge. Marketshare has changed drastically, but I do think that by playing on peoples' needs to participate in social media, Starbucks may start to close that gap.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
+ 006 - 03.06-10 - NEWS
The Academy Awards are changing things up a bit this year. Sort of. It's their advertisers that are doing the real moving and shaking. Stuart Elliott talks about how advertisers had been wary to invest because of the economy and low viewership of the awards program (36.9 million viewers is considered low) last year. Big names such as McDonalds and Bertolli foods/Unilever even skipped out on advertising during the Oscars last year. This year, things are considerably different.
Michael J. Boylson, chief marketing officer for J.C. Penney, who'll be running an advertisement featuring Cindy Crawford tomorrow night, claims that it's the public interest that's up this year, which makes this year that much more viable. With films as huge as Avatar, Up!, Inglourious Basterds and The Blind Side all up for big awards, the public will definitely be tuning in and be interested, making the public all the more available and willing to watch.
As a faithful Oscars viewer, what do I think?
Well, I think the uniform answer is, "it depends." As an Oscars viewer, I'm excited that it will be the most watched ceremony in a few years. I'm also excited to see the new things that happen; a good example being the Hyundai commercials. Hyundai's normal spokesperson, Jeff Bridges, won't be appearing in the ads during the Oscars because of a policy that prohibits nominees (he's up for an award with Crazy Heart,) from appearing in commercials during "their" segment of the show. Hyundai is scheduled to advertise seven times during the Academy Awards. Rumor has it, and this is one thing I'm excited for, Bridges will be replaced with several different celebrities. From an advertising student's standpoint? After sticking with the same spokesperson/narrator for so long, it'll be refreshing to hear the voices of such names as Kim Basinger, Martin Sheen, Richard Dreyfuss and Catherine Keener. Also, for the first time, movies are being advertised during the ceremony (due in part to sponsorships from CBS Films and Summit Entertainment,) which is also exciting from a marketing standpoint.
There are a few changes being made this year, which are suitable and very much anticipated. Some things are a little nerve-wracking (see spokesperson switching,) and others are exciting, such as movie previews and big awards. There isn't much that I'm not excited for tomorrow night, but I will confess, I'm definitely interested to see where the advertisements go.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
+ 005 - 02.28.10 - ACADEMIC
In terms of design and industry, these two talks, in the same vein, introduce a new way of computer animating. The revolutionary form of digitizing a photo-real face has been seen in films like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and in this TED talk, Paul Debevec and Ed Ulbrich demonstrate how it was done.
Paul Debevec explains the process of capturing these images. The process begins in a setting called Light Stage 5, a netted, dome-like structure where the subject stands under 156 white LED bulbs. This setting photographs surfaces at all angles and allows different lighting patterns to be seen, getting every angle and texture of the face from every angle and line possible. The light stage photographs at about five frames per second and can get the coarse and fine textures of the skin through polarizing cameras. The different types of images gathered, based completely on the shine of one's skin, are unique to this camera. They allow for incredibly minute detail (including pores, wrinkles and hair,) as opposed to the pristine skin of characters in Pixar's Toy Story or even more recently, Up!
These photographs enable designers to create the most realistic, computer generated face seen on cameras in approximately 3 seconds at a time.
Ed Ulbrich takes things further and explains exactly how Light Stage 5 and other technologies were used in making The Curious Case of Benjamin Button a reality. Their task was significant, holding up an entire hour of a movie with a completely computer generated, photo-real character.
What does this mean for marketing and design?
Ed Ulbrich states it best when talking about Paul Ekman in the early 70's and his Facial Action Coding System. It creates infinite possibilities in terms of making a digital actor. The time required to photograph is minimal and once digital catalogs are formed, the possibilities of creation for this new, digital character are infinite.
When it comes to marketing and design, this solution could, in coming years, prove to be highly economic, controllable, and again, once digital catalogs are formed, efficient. Ulbrich states that after the digital capture of Brad Pitt's face, he had thousands of facial expressions, everything that Pitt's face was capable of doing that possibly even Pitt didn't know about, at his disposal. In a design context, this capability is groundbreaking.
Potentially gone are the days of fifty takes to get a talking head in a commercial to get a facial expression or tic of a character correct. Production costs could go down, studio rental time could be cut in half. For short advertisements that are placed in such venues like the Superbowl, if one were to have a catalog of digital faces and their expressions, like the pictures on iStockphoto, Corbis or other websites of that kind- pay for actors would be minimal to none. Costs overall would go down, from production to placing. Of course, given the innovative nature of the technology, it incurs a significant amount of at startup.
If this practice were to become convention and commonplace? Commercial actors could be entirely replaced, saving parent companies and production studios large amounts of money and time.
Monday, February 22, 2010
+ 004 - 02.22.2010 - ACADEMIC
IN RESPONSE TO: 'COMMUNICATOR PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS & PERSUASION'
This is one of the most fascinating pieces of academic writing I've ever read. I'm partially basing my thesis on this, so I figured I could do a decent blog entry about it. Shelly Chaiken, a social psychologist, claimed that attractive communicators (identified by specific criteria including assertiveness, friendliness, physical attractiveness [measured on a five point scale,] expertise, sincerity [smiling was judged] and confidence [pauses in speech were measured]) were more effective persuaders than unattractive communicators.
After extensive studies, Chaiken concluded that:
"... Attractive and unattractive individuals do differ on dimensions other than physical appearance. Attractive communicators were more fluent speakers and faster speakers than their unattractive counterparts. Further, attractive communicators tended to report higher scores on two indices of educational accomplishment (grade point average, SAT scores) and described themselves somewhat more favorably along several dimensions (persuasiveness, attractiveness, interestingness, optimism about getting an excellent job) that may tap aspects of self-concept.
"... And although little is known concerning the psychology of the persuasive communicator (in contrast to the psychology of the message recipient,) it seems reasonable that factors such as self-concept and educational achievement, a frequently used indicant of intelligence, should contribute to one's effectiveness as a social influence agent."
In the simplest of terms? If you think you rocked that job interview and are convinced that you are the person for the job? Odds are you did.
I think it's fascinating that confidence has been scientifically discovered and analyzed as a factor of effective communication. It's a large part of what I'm dedicating the later portion of my academic career to and I think confidence is a large part of the lives of anyone my age. Talking about confidence is always going to seem a little cliche and monotone to me; yes, confidence is important, yes, we should have it in everything we do, blah blah blah.
It's never been proven to me with cold, hard facts before. With a scientific, lab study. The details are in the article and it might be locked to the database, but if you have an SCSU library code, you can access it. The statistics from Chaiken's study indicate that people found confident persuaders to be attractive, and the attractive persuaders to be more effective. I personally think this an awesome thing to have documented, rather than just having it be a general belief, and the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
Like I said before, it's nice to know that if you think you nailed it? Odds are that you probably did, and that, especially in this economy/job market? Is supremely comforting.
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1387-1397.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
+ 003 - 2.16.2010 - NEWS
IN RESPONSE TO: A FINE LINE WHEN ADS & CHILDREN MIX
This article was definitely a tough read. I'm a media awareness advocate. I play both sides of the field when it comes to the ethics of advertising for several reasons and not only because it's a tendency of mine to play the Devil's Advocate for debate's sake. When children are involved, however, my personal preference is to advocate for them and not the media being directed at them, if the two, in this case, can be considered as the two sides to this equation.
The article addresses the fact that advertising is becoming more subtle than ever in magazines like Discovery Kids, Boys' Life and National Geographic Kids, saying that "Publishers and advertisers are becoming more creative about such ads [aimed at children,] and are running games, contests and events where the advertiser has only a subtle presence — exactly the opposite of what some of the advocacy groups were aiming for." I agree with that fact. It's like the old advertisements on television, where Fred Flintstone would walk out of Bedrock and into a Winston cigarette commercial, except these days, it's technically under different terms. There are blips of black screen to separate commercials from the television show, but where is the line in a magazine? This article brings to light this issue and I find it fascinating.
There is no blip of black space in a magazine. There is no differentiation between what is part of the show and what isn't, at least that's the argument the Times is making. The regulations on advertising to children are tighter than ever. Hersheys', Coca Cola and other companies have specifically stated that they will not advertise to children, period, because of the points brought up by advocacy organizations regarding child obesity and health.
Another argument that the article presents is that children are not educated or equipped enough to properly process or analyze advertisements. This is another point I agree with, to an extent. The blanket answer for my personal stance, is that it depends. Susan Linn, director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is vehement about her claim, saying that the goals of advertisers are "insidious" and are meant to force a child to incorporate a brand into their identity. I feel that this is a bit extreme. It all depends on the child and what their comprehension is. A child that can differentiate a commercial from a show is vastly different from one that cannot, but both are impacted. Each child is different, as are their comprehension skills. While I think it's good that Ms. Linn is standing up for these children, I do believe that her stance is a bit too broad for my taste.
Do I think that advertisers should be more wary when advertising to children? Of course. As an advertising student, I wouldn't market macaroni and cheese to a child the same way that I would market it to an adult. It's comparing apples and oranges, for lack of a better analogy. I agree that discretion should be taken. I think that advertising to children should be done with tact and taste and I think that it should be noted the significance of the impact advertising has on children, whether it is as extreme as saying that it forces children into incorporating brands into their identity of changing the channel, it tells a child to do something, and that is what the bottom line is. The variable is what that child ultimately chooses to do on his or her own.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
+ 002 - 2.6.2010 - INDUSTRY
IN RESPONSE TO- JACEK UTKO ASKS: CAN DESIGN SAVE THE NEWSPAPER?
Jacek Utko is a designer. He designs not only for creative expression, but to sell and revive the newspaper culture. He designs with a mission; to prolong the life of the physical newspaper. "Can anything sell newspapers?" He asks, and it's a loaded question. In a world of instant gratification, of iPads, (touchscreen tablets that do, quite literally, do everything,) of mobile Internet and hands-free communication, why would anyone possibly want to carry around something physical? Why would a person want to lug around an issue of the sunday New York Times? Utko answers that question.
Utko never set out to design newspapers. He wanted to create art, to design posters and things that jumped off the page. He was hired as an art director for a newspaper in Eastern Europe and it was the most boring job he'd ever had, with boring words and boring colors. When he started working with Pulz Biznesu, a Polish economic newspaper, things changed. His covers have been recipients of numerous awards, including, but not limited to World's Best Designed by the Society for News Design.
"The secret is that we were treating the whole newspaper as one piece, as one composition," Utko states. Instead of divying up the newspaper into traditional sections, he created a newspaper as a cohesive piece of art. "Like music. [Music] has ups and downs and design is responsible for this experience. Flipping through pages is [...] an experience, and I'm responsible for this experience." The all-encompassing manner with which Utko speaks about a newspaper is refreshing. The zeal with which he speaks about designing is inspiring, but does it answer the original question? Can newspapers be saved?
At the pace with which technology is evolving, I would be loathe to say either yes or no. Newspapers provide an experience, and Utko is correct in his assertion. But the definition of 'experience' differs from person to person. As does the definition of 'newspaper' in today's world. Children being brought up in the touchpad, instant-gratification world may not define a newspaper as a tangible, readable.. thing with pages and ink and a distinct smell.
Do I think that design can help in the fight to save the newspaper culture? I definitely believe that, 100%. What was popular in the early 1900's may not be popular today. Design concepts evolve with time and we as students, media consumers and designers, are finding ourselves in another crux. This crux is the transition into a purely digital age. Design is one of the few things that is sure to survive the transition.
Jacek says that "you can live in a small poor country, like me. You can work for a small company, in a boring branch. You can have no budgets, no people -- but still can put your work to the highest possible level. And everybody can do it." No matter what, design and ideas transcend budgets or means. I believe that with the endless resource that is creativity and imagination, newspapers' livelihood can be improved. It won't solve the decline in newspapers, but it can certainly slow it down.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
+ 001 - 01.27.2010
IN RESPONSE TO: THE LONG TAIL by CHRIS ANDERSON
There are a few things that are really relevant in this article to both what I'm learning how to do professionally and what my lifestyle has been like for the past 21 years. Anderson prefaces things by showing the significance of the online culture, citing the example of the book battle between Joe Simpson's Touching the Void and Jon Krakauer's Into Thin Air. What had happened, long story short, was that Simpson's book sales skyrocketed when Krakauer released a book of similar nature. This is credited to Amazon.com and like-minded businesses/websites that provide things like recommendations for their customers. Anderson notes, importantly, that at this point in time, Touching the Void, Simpson's book, outsells Into Thin Air by Krakauer two to one.
He makes a good point. It's one of the rules he later brings up about making things easier for consumers (others include "#1 Make EVERYTHING available and #2 Cut the price in half, and now lower it.)
He also addresses the topic of living in a new world of abundance with iTunes, Rhapsody, Amazon and more. "The biggest money is in the smallest sales," Kevin Laws says, and he's totally right. This concept is referred to as the 'long tail concept.' It's a principle that most sites like overstock.com and alice.com depend and operate on. I have experience and knowledge about marketing through school and current things I'm involved with, so this is something I can relate to.
According to the Boston Marketing Matrix, each company's market growth and market share depends on four different aspects, the stars (high share, high growth,) question marks (low share, high growth,) cash cows (high share, low growth,) and the dogs (low share, low growth.)
The matrix dictates that most money comes from the things that have low growth- e.g., those people that bought Simpson's book over time rather than the surge of popularity that came with the release of Krakauer's book, which could be equated to something like a question mark or a star.
I agree with Anderson in that sense. I agree with the 'long tail' concept as well. The Internet provides people with the abundance they need, as mentioned before, and does it conveniently over a span of time, which provides (much needed in this economy,) longevity for the businesses that operate online.
